[r-t] Proposed definition of a peal

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> It seems a shame to leave out the possibility of multiple non-changing 
> bells, as that does occur in practice. Mostly quarters today, but at least 
> one peal (not accepted by the CC, of course).

I'm on Graham's side of the fence with this. I think:

1. It's an excellent idea to liberalise method classification rules and 
hence allow more innovation in what can be rung to a peal.

2. I DON'T think it's a good idea to devalue the things a change-ringing 
peal stands for.

Allowing peals where numpties have bonged one bell behind another or rung 
call changes for three hours doesn't sound like something we should be 
doing. Sorry to sound elitist, but we are in danger of being far too PC and 
saying a peal can be any old crap. I don't buy it!

MBD